W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > July 2013

RE: I too am opposed to HTML5 DRM

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 03:10:51 +0000
To: "auto78240314@hushmail.com" <auto78240314@hushmail.com>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <25b7132f82c44ce4ac21f7729b41e0c1@BN1PR03MB252.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> I am at a loss as to why the recording industry can't live with network control, and watermarking linked to remote destruct on command.

If you are a supporter of this technical approach then you should avail yourself of the opportunity to draft a HTML5 "extension specification" [1] to propose how to do this.  But it is NOT appropriate to use this technical forum to argue against the EME (or MSE) extension specification approach.  

Further dialogue along this lines will be grounds for suspending your ability to post to public-html-media@w3.org since this is NOT the forum for such discussion.

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#extension-specs


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: auto78240314@hushmail.com [mailto:auto78240314@hushmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:41 PM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: I too am opposed to HTML5 DRM

Hello Paul and fellow colleagues:

This might be a good time for you to provide us an email address for the Restricted Media Community Group.
Also, I am at a loss as to why you don't think this list is appropriate for discussions on whether or not w3C has made an error about allowing DRM.

For the record I too believe that w3C has made an error, and believe that the last correspondent's suggestions on removing DRM are valid, and should be heard in this forum.  At issue is not whether or not W3C has allowed them, but whether or not they should be continue to be allowed, the consequences, and what IP rights do authors of creative works have in the absence of DRM from the w3C standard.

There is a lot more at stake than merely intellectual property.  If you have a DRM in place, potentially you can exclude people from the usage of the net, even if they are not financially liable.  It doesn't take much in the way of creative thinking to figure out how this can be deployd.  Given the fact of the environment we are in, with SOPA, PIPA, and a myriad of other new pieces of federal legislation, all geered toward state censorship, I am at a loss as to why the recording industry can't live with network control, and watermarking linked to remote destruct on command.

Those who seek protection of their works need to utilize network control, and not DRM as a method for protecting their works. As it stands, I am left with no other choice but to believe that DRM is being run through w3C for ulterior motives. I am starting to wonder whether or not the w3C is still a neutral scientific body, with a goal of protecting the public's interest through standards?  Or has the w3C been taken over by political interest with an agenda. If the w3c doesn't want fragmentation of the industry, it needs to be an inclusive body that listens to all.

Randal South



On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:01:00 -0700 "Paul Cotton" 
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>The W3C has already ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML WG [1].  
>See also the W3C CEO's blog post at [2].
>
>
>
>Please do NOT start email threads on this list arguing that EME or DRM 
>is out of scope for the HTML WG.  If you want to discuss such matters 
>please take them somewhere else and possibly to the Restricted Media 
>Community Group [3].
>
>
>
>The public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org>
>email list is for "technical" discussions about the EME and MSE 
>specifications.
>
>
>/paulc
>
>HTML WG co-chair
>
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-

>admin/2013Feb/0122.html
>
>[2]
>http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html

>
>[3] http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/

>
>Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>From: Árni Arent [mailto:arniarent@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:33 AM
>To: public-html-media@w3.org
>Subject: I'm opposed to HTML5 DRM
>
>Hi
>I'm a programmer by profession and I deal with DRM systems where I 
>work. My 6 years of experience in the IPTV field I am in has taught me 
>lessons about DRM, and why they're bad. I can not go into details on my 
>experiences, but there are big issues when it comes to those DRM 
>systems, their cost, service reliability, end user experience etc. I 
>could explain in further details my experiences if that is needed, I 
>will get permission for that.
>
>DRM affects the overall end-user experience, quality of the service and 
>is a black hole on resources.
>
>There are other ways to ensure content is delivered securely to the 
>right party, e.g. via HTTPS and via one-time use tickets, and they 
>could easily prevent piracy as much as DRM does, and they'd do it for 
>fraction of the cost that DRM costs. YouTube does this.
>At the end of the day, if someone really wants to pirate, he can do so 
>with or without stringent DRM controls. It only needs one person to 
>steal a movie and put it online, yet Hollywood has resorted to 
>thermonuclear warfare against the entire populous in the attempt to 
>squash this one annoying fly. And even if it is squashed, another one 
>pops up.
>DRM should be banished by law as "pollution" in the digital eco- 
>sphere.
>
>I encourage you to abandon integration of DRM into W3C's Open Web 
>Standards, simply because they are not what the web should be about. 
>Adding protection for certain companies into the web standard is an 
>insult to not all the end users out there but all the other companies 
>that would like protection for their content.
>Should photo stock companies get image DRM protection? What's next?
>
>Anti-piracy should not be part of HTML5. HTML5 should not care about 
>DRM or piracy. HTML5 should be blind on these. DRM should be none of 
>web's problem, it's an placebo technology that serves no purpose. 
>Piracy is a social issue, and a content distribution issue, and cannot 
>be solved by an obscure standards extension that will likely be ignored 
>by some browser vendors, e.g. Mozilla, effectively creating multiple 
>web standards.
>Where I am sitting, DRM has proven to be a disastrous and pointless 
>exercise that has yielded no anti-piracy result.
>Prolonging the DRM era is a huge mistake, don't contribute to it, end 
>it.
>
>Best regards
>
>
>--
>Kveðjur
>
>Árni Arent
>arniarent@gmail.com<mailto:arniarent@gmail.com>



Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 03:12:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:39 UTC